‘Administrative Investigation May 29, 2015 Page 4 (GRD ard the Board of Supervisors. However, she doesn’t know if he ever followed through. RR had some observations of her own about he was in one of the regions she oversaw. She stated that when he demoted she agreed with it and felt that he “tanked” on his own, He also had some health issues, was not good with managing his time, was really stressed, and also had a long commute from San_Jacinto to Indio. [further recalled that there was an incident <— was waiting to talk to him about a case one evening around 6:30 p.m. jended up reporting to her supervisor and [i 2 a aT step outside, and then he “pushed” or “nudged” her when she walked away. Howes was not aware of any retaliation EEE suffered as a result of this incident. SE 600d (ot I 2d complained about MEE ouching her. Ca recalled that I would constantly go around saying to people, “I'l tell my Finally, IY stated during his interview that during a staffing of some cases{EEE ed where [EEE was present, she displayed a “sugary, sappy, and nice” demeanor, but when it came to ME corp etely berated and humiliated him in font of he hs stated that he had never seen treat_someone like that before. However, it was unclear whether this incident took place before or after EEE complained about EEE or whether the two were connected. Conelusion: Ultimately, the person’s input on these matters (EEE that was most important to determine whether the allegation that he was treated unethically had any merit, was not available, as ME ws unwilling to be interviewed by Human Resources, ‘Therefore, there was insufficient evidence gathered during the investigation to substantiate this allegation. Foreing Adoptions to Give Boys 0 i The anonymous complainant further alleged that Adoptions was “forced” to give legal guardianship to MEE hen they recommended against it HE curing the timeframe (between April 2013 and October 2013) when fwas removed rom their Placement List and then placed back on after his complaint. She provided further detail regarding what occurred | She stated that prior to this timeframs had ly adopted two children (one from Riverside County and one from L.A. County), which occurred r to her working in Adoptions, possibly 8 or 10 years ago first came to the attention of Jand Adoptions in 2012, when she was the is cri Si was the ‘They received a call from a supervisor at YCR (Youth workers, Community Resources), who mn 8-year old boy to place. One of Adoptions’ soci erformed the Home Study and recommended‘Administrative Investigation May 29, 2015 Page 5 placement with IEto the Court. (who no longer works for the Count eres = = er 2013) placed the child with The next morning following the placement, YCR visited home and called Adoptions complaining about home. They stated his house was dirty, one of the windows to the house ‘was covered/boarded up, and the kids living there were playing violent video games. called TE ond GMB and told them they were taking the 8-year-old child out of home because “something was not right.” cc ‘het already talking about adopting the child, and said he “loved the child”, which appeared to be an “overboard” attachment he had developed with the child unusually early. Further, when the YCR social worker went to the house, the child was down at the “skate park” unsupervised. The child was taken out of the house, and moved to another home. Subsequently, the new foster mom found a cell phone on the child that had been given to him by IE The phone contained a text message to the child from one of the older boys in home that said something to the effect of, “When are we going to do another rape?” HD 2c) that MM was very irate when the child was removed from his home. [i «2c HR st 860 the case and decided that there was too much “yuck” surrounding {MM So. the decision was made to not place anymore kids with him, ‘There had also been previous allegations against IIL ‘They later found out that went another route to try to get legal guardianship of another boy. A case worker came to Adoptions to ask about i ond III recommended they not place him with [BB due to his CPS_history, and that they should also talk_to A judge ultimately ruled in favor of [iifeetting the boy, but according to he was not a DPSS. placement and no further children have been placed vith by DPSS since the 8-year old was removed from i home. RE oy e21t 00 to state that about 0, when TE was a (before she retired), she la a meeting. She said had complained tol jand he had an attorney who didn’t see why IEEE should not receive any more DPSS placements, Jet over everything — + ao that he had attomey. and had received direction from (0 find a way that he could adopt. aa also suppogtive of receiving further placements. Subscquently, there was a second meeting between and a cc cc a aren ron Fras that ey should find a way that he could have placements. perceived that there were “marching, orders” from [to “make it happen.” The argument was that he had successfully placed children already. ‘The solution fashioned was to send him “older kids”, who could complain if something happened. EIS or [III were against the idea. However, an additional decided on was to place an “alert” on his placements so that inquiries would go to and she would recommend against placing with him. According to -ceived calls for about 10 more placements, but no more Riverside children were placed h EE y DPSS.Administrative Investigation May 29, 2015 Page 6 ER po vied additional details regarding what occurred with I He explained that prior to YCR removing the boy, wes an approved placement, which meant a home study had been done. Home studies include a bio and psycho-social assessment and_an investigation of the individual and his home. He was approved for placement years before a ...: the Adoption Services. Due to the concerns raised by YCR, they started investigating [IEEE and reviewed any other prior allegations that were on file. There were some minor substantiated allegations (e.g,, he had taken the door off on one of the kid’s rooms), but they were technical violations that were not severe enough to exclude him from further placements. Lovee talked to the staff from YCR that removed the child from his home. YCR stated that| emed overly affectionate with the boys in a creepy way, he had also blocked one of the windows and had taken a door off a child’s room again, and there was the “sexting” between the boy that was removed from the house and one of the other boys that lived there. Based on this additional information, they felt they had enough to take| the placement list; however, he threatened to sue the Department because of this decision. So, Ee: IN tthe Banning DPSS Office in mid-2012 for about 20 1 30 minutes RB wanted a chance to defend himself regarding the condition of his home and the text messages . He had ridiculous excuses. He also stated he knew nothing about the text messages, and that they came from a boy who was an occasional guest in his home. Also, tated that they shouldn’t think his affection toward the boy was over the top. stated that he got a reepy vibe” from| land since the County has discretion over who they place children with, the decision was made to take| off the placement list. Ultimately, the reasons they relied upon were one, he had two special needs children and couldn't handle anymore, and two, he was a “creepy guy.” Whey] called him to advise what their decision was, he threatened to sue them and go over head. (RR 2.c1ecd that when he was in his last week at Adoptions and about to head over to Adult Sonos herecived 2 call A sie ole hi st NM sid }vas complaining and that RMN wanted them to review his case again to see if it was still necessary for him to be off the placement list HR cn interviewed had limited information about the! case, but stated that both ll es have told that they gave distinct formation and reasons to about why shouldn't have any more placements; however, they received push back from her. me. interviewed confirmed that as the a. she was involved in the| Jcase when issues with his placement first arose. The case was staffed, a child was removed fr home, and was placed in another home. EEE concurred at the time with the child being removed from home. Later, there was “a push” to have {EEE home taken off of “hold”, so he could receive further placements, coc remember who was pushing for him to have placements, but she did recall that [Masked her to look into why was placed on hold, as he had already adopted a child from Riverside County and Los Angeles County.Administrative Investigation May 29, 2015 Pag 7 MB dic. not think there were sufficient reasons to place him on hold, and she did not have confidence in the staff's decision. When cokes I cane that [IBBBB did not say that she “wants” him to have further placements, but she thought staff may have made the wrong decision. [I MB curther expressed that she thought the staff may have ovgreacted. and he adoption worker, PE 1 NNN so cocesve placements a his attorney to discuss his placement status. The decision was made to allow to have further placements, but only boys of a certain age. As far as KE t not, so she had to dig through and read emails that had been sent between staff, and also examine the case history. [IE acknowledged that based on her review, she was in support of EEE hold being removed and him receiving further placements. She had noted that one of the emails from about [BBB was very disrespectful in how she talked about him to other staff. Also, someone referred to him as “quirky” ‘od AR that he took quirky to a “whole new level. didn’t feel that they had given him a fair shake, and didn’t think had met with him to explain the reasons why they didn’t suas tn ‘aos etfs Kis aopncen, Woen. ache ae “Por the Children”, advocated on behalf of to_have_more lacements, she didn’t think so and didn't hear from her on the case and wasn’t sure [I and paths would ever have crossed. HE went on to state that she was disappointed at the time with how the staff had handled the case. She stated tha Jwas a human being and should still be treated with respect. Looking back, BEBE recognizes that she was wrong about [and it really bothers her and she can’t believe how she got it wrong and how he was able to pull the wool over her eyes and over the eyes of others. Sc: down in tears at this point, and did so several times throughout her interview). With respect to how she viewed his case at the time however, he was someone who took in difficult boys, he had a job in the school district, and there was no factual information to suggest he was molesting the kids or that anything was going on in the house. EB had no criminal history, and the boys who lived in the hous made no allegations against him. There were some things that were potential issues such as the house being full of dog hair, a door being taken off one of the rooms, and a couple of the boys in the home had acted out sexually when he left them hom these were difficult boys where these types of issues can occur. Also, just be “| single gay man did not automatically mean he was a pedophile._She opined that we and adoptive parents to bond with the children, and when’ MEE once “too fast” with the boy that was removed, we fault him for it. In addition, although there had been some prior referrals on the home, which looking back should have been looked into further at the time they occurred, at the time she reviewed case history, those referrals were unfounded MB ws further asked if EEE complaint being high profile in nature because an attorney was involved and the entire Board being Ce:d on the complaint, made any difference in how she evaluated the case. She stated “no” ee stated that she deals with a lot of Board complaints and evaluates each case the same and tries not to be judgmental, and had [EEE complained by himself, she would have evaluated the case in the same way. [NRE stated that she takes pride inAdministrative Investigation May 29, 2015 Page 12 being fair and looking at cases from all sides. When asked if both she and a: with i as. stated they both met with him in Banning in September 2013, ané-he came without his attorney, (HR vas asked if the Department has discretion whether or not to allow someone to have ents, and she stated that they do. However, she added that with Child Welfare, decisions there are often these gray areas, and they are seldom black and white decisions. With the bottom line was, there was not enough factual evidence to deny him placement and it also had to be considered that he takes in difficult boys the Department needs to place. jwas then asked to describe the meeting withllhnd what was discussed. She stated that \¢ talked about his position at the school as a children’s aid, He explained that he took the door off of one of the boy’s rooms so he could keep a better eye on him. With respect to the dog hair, he admitted that he wasn’t “the world’s greatest housekeeper.” He offered them plausible tions regarding all of their concerns, and he was willing to fix anything that he needed es that when they took the boy from his home, he didn’t want to leave. One of the social workers had accused him of sending sexual texts to one of the boys, but it tumed out to be one of the older boys in the home and MBE said he cidn’t know about the text messages. ‘They expressed their concems with his Subevision, and discussed how he had used a baby sitter who had an open CPS case against her ee however that he didn’t know about her CPS case, and once it was brought to his attention he immediately got rid of the sitter. HB 2s. also ME incicated whether or not she thought I should have and| acements prior to| making their determination on him. She stated that| ee: he hadn't been given a fair shake. In fact, all three of them thought it should be looked at again, and none of them were swayed by an attomey being involved or the fact that it was a Board complaint, EEE further stated that at one point she had aE ec0sicn summarizing all of the “red flags” on the case thet could be of concern, but Jwas of the opinion that those things needed to be looked into further. Ultimately, it was decided that[IIEEEEEEEE Would be put back on the placement list, but with restrictions such as, prior tof eceiving placements, the case would have to be staffed and he would not be allowed any babies, and any boys placed would have to be a minimum of 13- was advised that there would be conditions, and he indicated he was interested adopting. BEM stated that she heard afterward that a flag was also placed in the system on| where anyone wanting to place with him would have to first contact According to| no further placements were made with] able to find some solace in that. by DPSS, and she is When asked further about] role in the decision, tated that authority and she could have overruled| Jand if she disagreed with them. added that no one has a crystal ball and it was more her fault than as far as the decision that was made. She added that IEEE reviewed all of the information, but had depended on her and ssessments. s the fina‘Administrative Investigation May 29, 2015 Page 13 Investigator Not Various emails regarding the ll case that had been retained by and RE «set! as emails provided by EEE regarding the| case, are attached to this investigative report. Within those emails are some additional concems (listed below) regarding [MMM that DPSS appeared to be aware of at the time he w: taken, C Placement List and before his hold was removed. Another reason for secking a copy “ial report was to determine if there were any more details that he discovered during his review, that were not available to this investigator © There was a prior referral on November 23, 2012, from an ex-boyfriend of illwhere he accused him of possibly having romantic feelings toward a 16-year-old neighbor who was spending a lot of time in the home. The ex-boyfriend stated that he has also known filto be turned on sexually by sexually explicit material involving young boys. The ex-boyfriend ended the relationship because of this; however, the ex-boyfriend also stated that the adopted children are not at risk and didn’t believe they had been exposed to anything inappropriate by * On September 23, 2009, it had been learned that the [home had previous substantiated referral history. One of his adopted sons who was still in the home had bullied another kid and ‘made him “suck the dog’s penis” and fondle each other's “balls.” Conclusion: Based on a review of all of the information gathered during the investigation regarding the ase, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Adoptions was “forced” to give boys to First, there was limited information available about the circumstances surrounding the first adoption of a Riverside child byl that occurred in years past (8 to 10 years ago according to fl _ Second, with respect to the 8-year-old boy that was more recently placed in a: in 2012 and whom YCR removed a short-time later, there is no available evider it lacement there was “forced”, as it appeared to be based on a recommen | HER who had performed and approved the home study of home. Third, based on ‘everyone interviewed who had pertinent information to provide, despite| placement hold being lifted in October of 2013, it docs not appear that any further placements were made to his home by Riverside DPSS. According (0 AMATI ie vs placed on MIE nome where anyone who wanted to place with him would first have to contact her, and she would then recommend against it. Ultimate manage to gain access to another boy; however, according to [il He went around DPSS and obtained him through another avenue (the court system). All of that said, even though there is insufficient evidence to substantiate that any adoptions were “forced” with IE it is still important to examine the decision that was made to lift his hold amidst all of the concerns known about him by DPSS, as well as who is ultimately responsible for that decision. None of the parties involved in making the ie indicated they were aware at the time that a “flag” was placed on home after the hold was lifted, and in fact stated during her interview that she didn’t find out about that until afterwards. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that their decision to lift fl hold was intended‘Administrat May 29, 2015 Page 14 e Investigation at the time to make him available for further placements, albeit once any potential placement was staffed and the added limitation was applied regarding boy(s) needing to be at least 13 years of age. Given what has occurred since with respect to [EEE bcing arrested, it should be clear to any reasonable person, that in hindsight, it was the wrong decision to lift his hold. However, amongst the three who were directly involved in making that decision, only EEE acknowledged it was the wrong decision and really owned having made it, and was very upset that she hax it wrong. ai not do this and was fairly guarded about her role in the al id not own the decision cither, and instead pushed the responsibility down to her| and would only acknowledge that since she didn’t override their decision, she therefore agreed with it, However, despite| Nr (0 take responsibility for the decision that was made, as the Ji she is ultimately responsible for any decisions made in her Division with respect to the placement of children. This is especially true when she assigns the matter to be reviewed by her Deputies, they inform her of what their decision is and the reasons they are making it, she agrces with them, and then follows up with line staff to make sure that the hold is lifted (as depicted in the emails attached to this report). According to IEEE an| expressed to them prior to the decision being made, that her opinion was that placements and she questioned the staff's decision to deny him. Oddly enough, s he too agreed with, the stafhs decision to place him on hold initially. Itis unclear why she later Jexpressed that er mind. (RBBB statcad when they met to discuss the ca [gave direction to find a way ‘he i adopt; however stated during her follow up interview that [EEEnever stated that she “wants” [to have placements. I cig acknowledge during her interview that they had the discretion to maintain old, but denied that his making a fuss and getting an attorney involved and sending a complaint to the Board had any influence on the decision. However, as will be discussed in a later section regarding EE cacership and decision-making, multiple people interviewed stated that when it comes to her decision making, IEEE places an emphasis on resolving complaints, in particular Board complaints, and that she may not always place the needs of tue children first. Although there is insufficient evidence to firmly conclude that this occurred in the| ase, and both: jand jeave numerous reasons why the hold was lifted (e.g, the children were doing well in the home, they said they felt safe when interviewed, reported no abuse, appeared to be a good caregiver, etc.), and denied that their decision had anything to do with the Board/attorney complaint; however, given the numerous known concerns with that were overlooked and not considered sufficient to maintain his hold, it is more likely than not that the complaint influenced their decision more than they realize, or at least more than they are able or willing to acknowledge. stated during his administrative interview that the YCR staff were the only ones that got it right on Jand erred on the side of the children. As the person who performed the Department's internal review of the case, this says a lot, and it is reasonable to conclude that his statement meant that the decision that was made by the Department did not err on the side of the children.